I've heard so many horror stories....

[gregy521]

All I can find about physics online is stories of how bad it is.
The field is high supply low demand
The pay is low for everything except the best positions
The hours are excruciating
You do more administration than actual physics
You have no free time for anything
There's no job security
You have to take years of student debt to be able to do it

These stories are really starting to discourage me from a career in physics, because a decent pay, reasonable hours and actually DOING physics are important to me. If these are true and to become a physicist I'll need to sacrifice my family, relationships, health and money to do it, I need another job where I can use my skills in physics and maths.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Its an idealized dream that only a few can ever get. Everybody else has to make do some other way. The vast majority of physics grads do not get a job as a physicist. Physics is not really a "field" as you describe it, its an academic subject. Its a fascinating subject to learn, lots of fun and lots of challenges. But its good to realize that a fun academic subject is not a job.

What skills in physics and math do you want to use? Ill tell you, after all my undergrad and grad classes in physics and math - none of them imparted any useful skills for my job. Just interesting academics.

 

[gregy521]

Its an idealized dream that only a few can ever get. Everybody else has to make do some other way. The vast majority of physics grads do not get a job as a physicist. Physics is not really a "field" as you describe it, its an academic subject. Its a fascinating subject to learn, lots of fun and lots of challenges. But its good to realize that a fun academic subject is not a job.

What skills in physics and math do you want to use? Ill tell you, after all my undergrad and grad classes in physics and math - none of them imparted any useful skills for my job. Just interesting academics.

I'm good at problem solving, physics and maths help. Physics also helps you turn a word problem into one which can be solved. I'm passionate about the subject but I don't want to do a job that I like, turned sour by long hours, low pay and being pestered to publish and get grants for research.

 

[VoloD]

Hello Greg

I understand EXACTLY how you feel. When you have time , look up BS Physics : Debate on Career in a google search and my thread should pop up. My story is different in that I started as an engineering major, switched into physics due the the rigor of the programs, and ended up regretting my choice upon graduation. I managed to plan my last year well enough to get into another engineering school, but that is beside the point.

I understand that physics is a very difficult subject to learn. There are some jobs out there that are willing to accept Physics majors besides education. However you will not be there first choice for jobs if they specifically want an engineer. Companies willing to hire physics majors will usually be specific about it or say something along the lines of "other technical fields". Going for your PhD is something I can not give advice on ( as obviously I switched fields upon graduation). I did do research work during undergrad and I honestly can say that it can rewarding but only to someone who truly values it.

Now depending on what you specialize in with Physics, your career can be more/less properous. Advanced degrees in fields like Optics, Nuclear Physics, Health/Medical Physics, and Geology have actual ties in industry. You can do anything from research work to actually working with technologies applicable in industrial settings.

I don't know how relevant this is, but what about your school. Is it well renown or simply known for being rigorous. If you can muster it , try getting a double major in technology, engineering, or computer science discipline. I really hate that physics on its own is not very well valued (although it is better off than its other science counterparts and in my opinion equal to math with employ-ability)

 

[ModusPwnd]

I think you should forget the low pay... Physicists do not make low pay, they make above average pay. Many people, in my opinion, have unrealistic ideas of what high pay is. The median household income in the US is ~51k a year. Two physics graduate students can make that, or close to it. Even if you don't land a job as a physicist you will probably make more than most people eventually. I delivered pizza for a few years after graduating, I made relatively low pay but could still pay my bills. Now I have a career style job and my job alone pays more than the median household income. There are technicians with DeVry degrees at my job that hit their FICA limit every year...

 

[gregy521]

Hello Greg

I understand EXACTLY how you feel. When you have time , look up BS Physics : Debate on Career in a google search and my thread should pop up. My story is different in that I started as an engineering major, switched into physics due the the rigor of the programs, and ended up regretting my choice upon graduation. I managed to plan my last year well enough to get into another engineering school, but that is beside the point.

I understand that physics is a very difficult subject to learn. There are some jobs out there that are willing to accept Physics majors besides education. However you will not be there first choice for jobs if they specifically want an engineer. Companies willing to hire physics majors will usually be specific about it or say something along the lines of "other technical fields". Going for your PhD is something I can not give advice on ( as obviously I switched fields upon graduation). I did do research work during undergrad and I honestly can say that it can rewarding but only to someone who truly values it.

Now depending on what you specialize in with Physics, your career can be more/less properous. Advanced degrees in fields like Optics, Nuclear Physics, Health/Medical Physics, and Geology have actual ties in industry. You can do anything from research work to actually working with technologies applicable in industrial settings.

I don't know how relevant this is, but what about your school. Is it well renown or simply known for being rigorous. If you can muster it , try getting a double major in technology, engineering, or computer science discipline. I really hate that physics on its own is not very well valued (although it is better off than its other science counterparts and in my opinion equal to math with employ-ability)

Funnily enough, I'm not actually in University yet. Not even College, (UK). I thought I had it all planned out, particle physics as a study or something similar, working through my BSc, MSc and PhD to a nice job with flexible hours and where I could have stimulating intellectual discussions with people just as passionate in my field as I am. I don't want a white collar job where I make spreadsheets for a company for an average pay in an average area and have an average family in an average house.
I want to do a job which I like, with subjects I'm good at, and actually help society progress.

Obviously it's a bit shaky now because of all the bad things I've heard, and yet I don't know what else I could do.

 

[symbolipoint]

Physics is good for you; but it is usually the engineers, chemists, microbiologists, and people with great and in-demand computer skills who have an easier time finding jobs.

PHYSICS GRADUATES: If you found employment, what besides Physics alone made you attractive or appealing to those who hired you?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't want a white collar job where I make spreadsheets for a company for an average pay in an average area and have an average family in an average house.

This is the thing I don't get. What you are turning your nose up at is what most people would consider a pretty good job. Two-thirds or three-quarters of the country is aspiring to a job like that. The sort of job you describe, where you are able to spend your days thinking deep thoughts undistracted by other responsibilities, essentially doesn't exist. Maybe a Nobel prizewinner can get a gig like this. For the vast majority of ordinary - and even outstanding - scientists, there simply are not jobs like this.

Related point. There's a reason they call it "work". Every job has its bad points. That's why they have to pay you to do it, and that's why they call pay "compensation". You can try to find a job with no bad points, just like you can hunt for unicorns.

Next related point: A job is not a reward for a degree, or for being smart. Jobs exist for one reason and one reason only: someone with money has a problem they need solved. Maybe it's that the coal is in the ground and needs to be on the train. Maybe it's that the train is here and needs to be there. Maybe it's a new locomotive that needs to be designed, and maybe it's a new generation of locomotive designers need to be taught physics. Whatever it is, the reason the job exists is something needs to be done. Not that someone just graduated.

The problem doesn't seem to be physics. It seems to be unrealistic expectations.

 

[symbolipoint]

This is the thing I don't get. What you are turning your nose up at is what most people would consider a pretty good job. Two-thirds or three-quarters of the country is aspiring to a job like that. The sort of job you describe, where you are able to spend your days thinking deep thoughts undistracted by other responsibilities, essentially doesn't exist. Maybe a Nobel prizewinner can get a gig like this. For the vast majority of ordinary - and even outstanding - scientists, there simply are not jobs like this.

Related point. There's a reason they call it "work". Every job has its bad points. That's why they have to pay you to do it, and that's why they call pay "compensation". You can try to find a job with no bad points, just like you can hunt for unicorns.

Next related point: A job is not a reward for a degree, or for being smart. Jobs exist for one reason and one reason only: someone with money has a problem they need solved. Maybe it's that the coal is in the ground and needs to be on the train. Maybe it's that the train is here and needs to be there. Maybe it's a new locomotive that needs to be designed, and maybe it's a new generation of locomotive designers need to be taught physics. Whatever it is, the reason the job exists is something needs to be done. Not that someone just graduated.

The problem doesn't seem to be physics. It seems to be unrealistic expectations.

This is hard for the younger students, especially the uncertain-decided ones, to manage. One way to decide the question, "what should I study?", is to see what companies want people to solve. Then ask self, "Which of these problems do I want to solve?" After this, ask yourself, "What major field of study will make me able to solve those problems?".

Physics includes much much much problem solving. So does engineering.

 

[radium]

A PhD in physics makes you very employable (outside of academia). When you have a PhD in physics, people assume you are smart and have great quantitive skills. They are often more than happy to hire you since they know you have the problem solving skills to learn very quickly on the job.

From what I have heard, it is quite easy to find work as a data scientist, at a place like Intel/IBM, startups, and definitely in finance and consulting. In fact, several companies in the areas above will even have recruiting events in physics departments (we regularly get emails from consulting firms, etc).

 

[Boolean Boogey]

This is the thing I don't get. What you are turning your nose up at is what most people would consider a pretty good job. Two-thirds or three-quarters of the country is aspiring to a job like that. The sort of job you describe, where you are able to spend your days thinking deep thoughts undistracted by other responsibilities, essentially doesn't exist. Maybe a Nobel prizewinner can get a gig like this. For the vast majority of ordinary - and even outstanding - scientists, there simply are not jobs like this.

Related point. There's a reason they call it "work". Every job has its bad points. That's why they have to pay you to do it, and that's why they call pay "compensation". You can try to find a job with no bad points, just like you can hunt for unicorns.

Next related point: A job is not a reward for a degree, or for being smart. Jobs exist for one reason and one reason only: someone with money has a problem they need solved. Maybe it's that the coal is in the ground and needs to be on the train. Maybe it's that the train is here and needs to be there. Maybe it's a new locomotive that needs to be designed, and maybe it's a new generation of locomotive designers need to be taught physics. Whatever it is, the reason the job exists is something needs to be done. Not that someone just graduated.

The problem doesn't seem to be physics. It seems to be unrealistic expectations.

This is so true. I can't even quantify the number of college graduates I have seen complaining that no one is handing them a job on a silver platter simply because they have a degree. Or, rather, the job opportunities that are presented to them do not meet the six figure income goals they had that were placed in their mind by what I call "degree salesmen".

I blame colleges for not giving students updated and realistic information about how the real world works for most people.

 

[gregy521]

I'm no stranger to hard work, and if it all fails miserably you learn a good deal of programming and problem solving skills just for doing physics so there's that, and I could get a reasonable job as a programmer or an accountant.

I know a job should be something you love, not just for the money or you'll never be happy, but when the pay is that meagre compared to the ridiculous hours and unstable jobs, alongside constant pressure to be publishing and grant searching, It doesn't really seem worth it when I could get a job that I didn't mind such as programming, do fewer hours, for more money, with less pressure and much more job security.

Oh and also, about the idea that 3/4 of the country wants to do a job like that, I think is a bit fabricated. "I hate maths" "I'm not good at maths" "I don't like Maths" or the same arguments for science is one of the most common sentiments when people come out of education. Most people don't want to think. (Funny hearing that but this IS a community of intellectuals after all) which is why reality TV and accountants who do taxes for you exist.

 

[radium]

Well if you want to earn a lot of money with a physics degree, just go into consulting/finance after your PhD. There are tons of physics PhDs (many of whom are former string theorists) who work as quants for hedge funds and make quite a nice living.

 

[gregy521]

Well if you want to earn a lot of money with a physics degree, just go into consulting/finance after your PhD. There are tons of physics PhDs (many of whom are former string theorists) who work as quants for hedge funds and make quite a nice living.

Well if I really wanted money I could go into banking. Mathematically heavy, High pay, lots of concepts similar to physics but it doesn't really appeal to me. Maybe I'll change my mind in the future but its not getting lots of money which I want, I just don't want to work my socks off to get a bad paycheck.

 

[jtbell]

I just don't want to work my socks off to get a bad paycheck.

I suppose it depends on your background and what you consider to be a "bad paycheck."

A couple of years after I finished my Ph.D., I went into one of the lower tiers of long-term academic physics jobs: a tenure-track, teaching-oriented (no research) assistant professor level position at a small liberal arts college in the boonies. My starting salary then would be about $45K today, after adjusting for inflation. From what I've heard, that is in fact about what we offer new assistant professors nowadays.

Since then, I've never gotten close to six figures. But... costs of living are low here. You can get a decent 3 bedroom 2 bath, 2000-2500 ft² house for less than $200K. We live within walking distance of campus so commuting expenses are zero. My wife has had a similar salary to mine. Together we've had no trouble buying a house, paying our bills, traveling (budget-type, not expensive Caribbean or ski resorts), and saving more than enough to keep a similar lifestyle in retirement. No kids, although we could have afforded it.

Compared to my parents (a firefighter and a school secretary in a midwestern steel-mill town who saved enough money to retire to a modest condo in Florida), I did all right. If my parents had been investment bankers pulling in $250K+ per year (today's dollars), I might feel differently.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Gregy, I think your recent messages amplify rather than counter my point.

 

[clope023]

Funnily enough, I'm not actually in University yet. Not even College, (UK). I thought I had it all planned out, particle physics as a study or something similar, working through my BSc, MSc and PhD to a nice job with flexible hours and where I could have stimulating intellectual discussions with people just as passionate in my field as I am. I don't want a white collar job where I make spreadsheets for a company for an average pay in an average area and have an average family in an average house.
I want to do a job which I like, with subjects I'm good at, and actually help society progress.

Obviously it's a bit shaky now because of all the bad things I've heard, and yet I don't know what else I could do.

You should realize that physics (and scientific research work in general) is not really like what they show in the documentaries by Brian Cox, Neil Tyson, Michio Kaku and such. Don't get me wrong there's plenty of room to have stimulating intellectual discussions with peers and I can understand wanting to do work of significance that's more than just making some company a buck but at the same time it is still work. You've got to provide some worthy problem that needs solving, the money that's needed to do the work to solve the problem, convince the funding source why you're the person that should get the money to solve the problem (not to mention back up plans in case funding doesn't work out), and then do the work of solving the problem (before competitors possibly do and publish the paper that could discredit your work first). I work in engineering research and there's plenty of non-scientific, non-intellectual, non-stimulating work that needs doing to support the research; which could involve filling out spreadsheets like a data entry clerk in a more basic job, hell there's been months where I was doing nothing but writing reports and making figures in Visio. You can have a happy medium though.

 

[f95toli]

Well if I really wanted money I could go into banking. Mathematically heavy, High pay, lots of concepts similar to physics but it doesn't really appeal to me. Maybe I'll change my mind in the future but its not getting lots of money which I want, I just don't want to work my socks off to get a bad paycheck.

I am not sure where you got the idea that physicists are not well paid. Even a post-doc will make more than £30K a year, and a senior lecturer at a university will make well over £40K. There are quite a few professors in the UK with salaries in the £60K-70K range (not to mention vice-chancellors!) .
This is much, much higher than the average annual salary in the UK, and well above what e.g. a teacher or a nurse would ever make.

Now, that this salary might not be enough to buy a nice house in London has nothing to do with the salary as such, this is more a reflection of the fact that the housing market has gone absolutely insane in the UK. There is also a relatively large minority who work in finance and related sectors are making silly amount of money; but they are still a minority and you can't use their salaries as a baseline.

Also, if you believe scientists have to work long hours you should talk to someone who works in finance or law

 

[Dr_Zinj]

"I don't want a white collar job where I make spreadsheets for a company for an average pay in an average area and have an average family in an average house."
Hate to break it to you, but if you're here asking this question, I don't think you're that 1% with an IQ over 150+ that everyone is looking for to plan the next Mars flight. I make spreadsheets for a company at significantly more than average pay in an average area, and have an average family in an average house. Which beats the heck out of starvation wages doing grunt work while living in a rented slum and wondering if I'll have enough food for the week, much less for electricity and heat. I understand that higher education in the UK is more geared toward career tracks than the laisse-faire U.S. system, but it seems to me that there are a lot more physics majors making good incomes than there are economics or finance majors making anything.

 

[clope023]

"I don't want a white collar job where I make spreadsheets for a company for an average pay in an average area and have an average family in an average house."
Hate to break it to you, but if you're here asking this question, I don't think you're that 1% with an IQ over 150+ that everyone is looking for to plan the next Mars flight. .

This is a pretty ridiculous line of reasoning; there's nothing wrong with seeing average careers in your day to day life and wanting something better or intellectually fulfilling and trying to plan for that does not imply that you won't get it.

 

[Jim Hasty]

Here is my story. I'm 62 and a retired engineer. In the 70's when I first started college I was very interested in science and math, especially physics. But I reasoned exactly as you are now - what is the most practical path figuring in job demand, family, pay, etc. I chose engineering and it paid well. But in hindsight I wish I had chosen a branch of engineering that would have required more physics courses, e.g. electricity and magnetism, Maxwell's theory, quantum physics, etc. I look back now and think wow - I missed experiencing some of the most exiting decades in physics advances. So my advice is: you can study these courses as requirements in engineering but you need to do some research on curriculums for various branches (of engineering) to see if they align with your interests.

 

[Boolean Boogey]

This is a pretty ridiculous line of reasoning; there's nothing wrong with seeing average careers in your day to day life and wanting something better or intellectually fulfilling and trying to plan for that does not imply that you won't get it.

There are merits to both lines of thinking. If someone wants to be the next Paul Erdős but doesn't have substantial mathematical talent they need to readjust their planning. On the other hand, you do not need to have an IQ in the 150 range to have an above average salary. Electricians pull in anywhere from 40k to 100k depending upon their area of work and where they live and I assure you they're not all geniuses and typically they have no degree.

This is why I currently do PLC programming / controls work and want an EE degree. Even if I don't get the EE degree a PLC programmer / consultant can earn 6 figures.

People should remember that having a high IQ does not automatically mean you'll make it, so to speak. Look at all the people like Nikola Tesla, Grigori Perelman, Srinivasa Ramanujan, etc. Their genius is undeniable and their legacy eternal, yet they didn't/haven't obtained a lot of wealth.

 

[Jano L.]

a decent pay, reasonable hours and actually DOING physics are important to me.

I don't think that a decent pay and doing physics with career in academia/research is impossible, if you can find a great boss for Masters thesis and PhD. You can get above average pay on your own quickly if you can win lots of grants, get abroad, get into international team and get a lot of stuff done and published in journals (focus on quantity, not quality).

However, despite my love of physics, I personally didn't want to do that, so I left academia. Best decision of my life. Got a job at a medium size web company. Not doing physics intensively anymore, but I find with change of environment, one finds other interests that are just as interesting and rewarding. And without constant pressure to churn out dud papers, write over-hyped proposals for grant money and maintain workable relations with people and system that are full of it, I have now a much more relaxed way of life. I can do some quality independent thinking without feeling guilty about wasting time and I actually again enjoy thinking and chatting about physics.

 

[LunaFly]

All I can find about physics online is stories of how bad it is.
The field is high supply low demand
The pay is low for everything except the best positions
The hours are excruciating
You do more administration than actual physics
You have no free time for anything
There's no job security
You have to take years of student debt to be able to do it

These stories are really starting to discourage me from a career in physics, because a decent pay, reasonable hours and actually DOING physics are important to me. If these are true and to become a physicist I'll need to sacrifice my family, relationships, health and money to do it, I need another job where I can use my skills in physics and maths.

I was curious what your source is for this information? I am not saying whether or not it is valid, just that blanket statements are seldom true.

I am graduating this spring with a BS in Physics from a school with a top-tier undergrad physics program, and I will have less than $10k in debt, so you do not have to take years of student debt to do it (to be fair, I am in the US and from a lower-middle class family). Also, why would a physics degree incur more debt than an engineering or other degree? If your argument is that an EE degree will earn more than a Physics degree upon graduation, check this out:

http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsalaryfield.cfm

As you notice, the high earners in the physics field make just as much as those in EE. If you want to make money in physics, look at something like this:

https://www.aip.org/statistics/physics-trends/starting-salaries-physics-bachelors

If money is your motivator, getting a graduate degree would boost your salary for sure:

https://www.aip.org/statistics/physics-trends/physics-phds-starting-salaries

I also wanted to say that you may be concerning yourself prematurely. You haven't even started college yet! While it is very important to take choosing a major seriously, you will still likely have a chance to change majors without big repercussions within your first year or so, especially between fields such as physics and engineering. It may be worth it to choose the major you feel most strongly about, and start on it, then see how it feels and go from there.

Part of what I love most about physics is its universal applications. Though my physics undergrad program hasn't taught me fluid dynamics, it has taught me differential equations, mechanics and, most importantly, the skills to piece things apart into understandable segments (as you put it, problem-solve); therefore I feel confident that fluid dynamics is something I could understand with some time and effort. To me, that is what makes physicists powerful; it's not that they know all the answers, it's that they can figure out a way to find the answer. "Figuring things out" through perseverance and struggle is what builds your skills and problem-solving power (ask anyone in research!). If you are the kind of person who sees no value in struggle, than perhaps physics is not the right subject for you.

 

[LunaFly]

I don't think that a decent pay and doing physics with career in academia/research is impossible, if you can find a great boss for Masters thesis and PhD. You can get above average pay on your own quickly if you can win lots of grants, get abroad, get into international team and get a lot of stuff done and published in journals (focus on quantity, not quality).

However, despite my love of physics, I personally didn't want to do that, so I left academia. Best decision of my life. Got a job at a medium size web company. Not doing physics intensively anymore, but I find with change of environment, one finds other interests that are just as interesting and rewarding. And without constant pressure to churn out dud papers, write over-hyped proposals for grant money and maintain workable relations with people and system that are full of it, I have now a much more relaxed way of life. I can do some quality independent thinking without feeling guilty about wasting time and I actually again enjoy thinking and chatting about physics.

I often hear stories of those (usually in the chemistry field) making the transition from the private sector to academia and being much happier, but this is the first I've heard of someone moving the other direction. Thank you for sharing your experience!

 

[Mark Davidson]

Physicists play important roles in all sorts of technological endeavors. Most technology projects have all sorts of engineers in a team. When a problem occurs, there are usually multiple solutions that can solve the problem. Each discipline will push for a solution that uses their particular skillset. If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The software team will propose a code fix. The mechanical team will look for a mechanical redesign. The electronic group will propose a new circuit. The statisticians might propose some new algorithm, the chemists might want a new material, etc. If the manager is from anyone of these teams, he has spent much of his engineering career pidgeon-holed in his field. Thus he will almost always side with his field's suggestion. Often this is not the best solution. So, management being aware of this often place physicists in the role of system analyst, or engineering manager, or system integrator, since they are not pidgeon-holed. Because of this, sometimes engineers can be envious of physicists because they are more free and seem to have more fun. Eventually, physicists who do this end up making more money then the quotididian engineers. Elon Musk and Larry Ellison come to mind, although there are many many more. One problem though, if you go into physics don't develop and arrogant personality. That will definitely hamper you in team relationships.

 

[symbolipoint]

Physicists play important roles in all sorts of technological endeavors. Most technology projects have all sorts of engineers in a team. When a problem occurs, there are usually multiple solutions that can solve the problem. Each discipline will push for a solution that uses their particular skillset. If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The software team will propose a code fix. The mechanical team will look for a mechanical redesign. The electronic group will propose a new circuit. The statisticians might propose some new algorithm, the chemists might want a new material, etc. If the manager is from anyone of these teams, he has spent much of his engineering career pidgeon-holed in his field. Thus he will almost always side with his field's suggestion. Often this is not the best solution. So, management being aware of this often place physicists in the role of system analyst, or engineering manager, or system integrator, since they are not pidgeon-holed. Because of this, sometimes engineers can be envious of physicists because they are more free and seem to have more fun. Eventually, physicists who do this end up making more money then the quotididian engineers. Elon Musk and Larry Ellison come to mind, although there are many many more. One problem though, if you go into physics don't develop and arrogant personality. That will definitely hamper you in team relationships.

That sounds like what people in universities say. What is the truth?

 

[Boolean Boogey]

I am graduating this spring with a BS in Physics from a school with a top-tier undergrad physics program, and I will have less than $10k in debt, so you do not have to take years of student debt to do it (to be fair, I am in the US and from a lower-middle class family). Also, why would a physics degree incur more debt than an engineering or other degree? If your argument is that an EE degree will earn more than a Physics degree upon graduation, check this out:

http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsalaryfield.cfm

As you notice, the high earners in the physics field make just as much as those in EE. If you want to make money in physics, look at something like this:

It looks to me as though EE have a much higher starting salary than physics graduates. Also, the median salary of EE is 89,630 USD according to google, so that graph appears to be a bit incorrect.

 

[LunaFly]

It looks to me as though EE have a much higher starting salary than physics graduates. Also, the median salary of EE is 89,630 USD according to google, so that graph appears to be a bit incorrect.

The plots I posted were from APS (American Physical Society), which is a source I trust, and the graph is based on real data, so I don't understand how it could be incorrect...?

 

[Boolean Boogey]

The plots I posted were from APS (American Physical Society), which is a source I trust, and the graph is based on real data, so I don't understand how it could be incorrect...?

Well first, the salary information is from 7 to 8 years ago so it could just be dated. Also your graph is from a survey which is a word I never like to hear when relying on a source for data. According to your information the starting salary of a BS in physics is roughly 64,000 while on here It's closer to 50,000 or 55,000.

Here is what I found (it's also from a survey which makes me cringe):

Annual pay for bachelor’s graduates without higher degrees. Typical starting graduates have two years of experience; mid-career graduates have 15 years. See http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/methodology.

Source: http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/majors-that-pay-you-back

http://www.payscale.com/chart/268/Top-10-Majors-by-Salary-Potential.2013-v1.0.png

It looks to me like the biggest factors are where you work as far as salary is concerned. Outside of petroleum engineering which I think most know is a gold mine right now.

 

[LunaFly]

Well first, the salary information is from 7 to 8 years ago so it could just be dated. Also your graph is from a survey which is a word I never like to hear when relying on a source for data. According to your information the starting salary of a BS in physics is roughly 64,000 while on here It's closer to 50,000 or 55,000.

Here is what I found (it's also from a survey which makes me cringe):

Annual pay for bachelor’s graduates without higher degrees. Typical starting graduates have two years of experience; mid-career graduates have 15 years. See http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/methodology.

Source: http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/majors-that-pay-you-back

http://www.payscale.com/chart/268/Top-10-Majors-by-Salary-Potential.2013-v1.0.png

It looks to me like the biggest factors are where you work as far as salary is concerned. Outside of petroleum engineering which I think most know is a gold mine right now.

You make some good points. The APS data is kind of dated.

As far as the "survey" aspect is concerned, I agree that that isn't a favorite word to hear about a data set. The APS data (at least, the one comparing bachelor degree starting salary) is from surveying campus recruiters while the data from payscale.com is from surveying employees themselves. It's up to debate which of these sources is a more accurate measure of what we are trying to discuss. It is also interesting that the payscale.com data specifies that those surveyed for "starting graduates" also have on average two years experience, so, in my humble opinion, that isn't really a starting wage; they already have experience at that point, making them worth more! This differs from the APS data which is from campus recruiters making offers to students soon to graduate, which may explain some of the difference in values.

Lastly, the APS data is a range of salaries, while the payscale.com data is a single (average) salary for each. You state that the APS data shows that the starting salary of someone with a physics BS is 64,000. Not so! The APS data only shows a range of salaries; the range goes from about 40,000 to 64,000, so 64,000 is the highest surveyed value of salary they found. The average of this salary range is about 52,000. This matches pretty closely the value posted on your plot, so I would venture to argue the data sets are consistent (at least for the physics major).

My point with posting the data was to show that the claim of the OP about everyone with a physics degree making low wages is incorrect. Though the data points to the fact that, on average, a person with an EE degree will make more that a person with a physics degree, the difference isn't huge (only about $10k according to your data set). Thus if in the OP's opinion all physicists make a low wage then so do most EE's.

 

[gregy521]

I was curious what your source is for this information? I am not saying whether or not it is valid, just that blanket statements are seldom true.

I am graduating this spring with a BS in Physics from a school with a top-tier undergrad physics program, and I will have less than $10k in debt, so you do not have to take years of student debt to do it (to be fair, I am in the US and from a lower-middle class family). Also, why would a physics degree incur more debt than an engineering or other degree? If your argument is that an EE degree will earn more than a Physics degree upon graduation, check this out:

http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsalaryfield.cfm

As you notice, the high earners in the physics field make just as much as those in EE. If you want to make money in physics, look at something like this:

https://www.aip.org/statistics/physics-trends/starting-salaries-physics-bachelors

If money is your motivator, getting a graduate degree would boost your salary for sure:

https://www.aip.org/statistics/physics-trends/physics-phds-starting-salaries

I also wanted to say that you may be concerning yourself prematurely. You haven't even started college yet! While it is very important to take choosing a major seriously, you will still likely have a chance to change majors without big repercussions within your first year or so, especially between fields such as physics and engineering. It may be worth it to choose the major you feel most strongly about, and start on it, then see how it feels and go from there.

Part of what I love most about physics is its universal applications. Though my physics undergrad program hasn't taught me fluid dynamics, it has taught me differential equations, mechanics and, most importantly, the skills to piece things apart into understandable segments (as you put it, problem-solve); therefore I feel confident that fluid dynamics is something I could understand with some time and effort. To me, that is what makes physicists powerful; it's not that they know all the answers, it's that they can figure out a way to find the answer. "Figuring things out" through perseverance and struggle is what builds your skills and problem-solving power (ask anyone in research!). If you are the kind of person who sees no value in struggle, than perhaps physics is not the right subject for you.

My sources are a variety of academic accounts and some people in the industry. Also, you have less than $10k usd in debt because your parents saved up for you to go to uni. We don't have that here, we have student loans. Sure some pay upfront but it's rare.

Also, Money isn't my motivator, I'd just like to earn at least a reasonable amount for my skill set. One wouldn't pay a lawyer minimum wage, why would a physics graduate be any different?

I do like everything to do with physics, but I'm still concerned because I don't want to go through Uni to find that I'll make bad pay for long hours at a job I won't have next year.

 

[LunaFly]

So your academic sources and industry sources all say that:

The field is high supply low demand
The pay is low for everything except the best positions
The hours are excruciating
You do more administration than actual physics
You have no free time for anything
There's no job security
You have to take years of student debt to be able to do it

? If you trust your sources, than I guess you've answered your own question. Run away from physics as fast as you can, because there is nothing but misery for you there, apparently.

I also wanted to point out that I did receive the equivalent of 1 year of tuition support from my parents. I paid for the rest with my job, scholarships, and loans. My school cost about $10k a year, so if I didn't have my parents support at all, I would have about $20k in loans. Still not huge.

 

[Boolean Boogey]

My point with posting the data was to show that the claim of the OP about everyone with a physics degree making low wages is incorrect. Though the data points to the fact that, on average, a person with an EE degree will make more that a person with a physics degree, the difference isn't huge (only about $10k according to your data set). Thus if in the OP's opinion all physicists make a low wage then so do most EE's.

I agree, it's what you do with your education combined with if you actually learned what your teachers were attempting to teach you.

 

[f95toli]

Also, Money isn't my motivator, I'd just like to earn at least a reasonable amount for my skill set. One wouldn't pay a lawyer minimum wage, why would a physics graduate be any different?

Again. who told you that physicists aren't well paid? How much you earn will obviously depend on what you end up doing and salaries in industry will vary quite a lot. However, even in academia people are actually quite well paid (have a look at the academic salary scale, it is available online); not nearly as much as a solicitor working in finance can make but that is -as I pointed out above- not a relevant comparison simply because people in that field make LOTS of money compared to 95% of the population in the UK, meaning using salaries in the finance/legal sector as a measuring stick makes no sense: there are virtually NO other jobs that pay that much (you would need to the the director of a reasonably large company to get even close).

It might be a good idea to have a look on a job site such as Monster; you will notice that there are actually relatively few jobs with a salary over £33K a year even in London and most of them will require several years of experience, and £33K is incidentally roughly what a post-doc is paid (in London you can make a bit more).

 

[Mark Harder]

All I can find about physics online is stories of how bad it is.
The field is high supply low demand
The pay is low for everything except the best positions
The pay is low
You do more administration than actual physics
You have no free time for anything
There's no job security
You have to take years of student debt to be able to do

High supply, low demand. = True, also true for all scientific/technical R&D type jobs I can think of. Medicine is a little better in this regard because medicine (excepting pathology) is practiced locally; i.e. it can't easily be outsourced to other countries like China or India. Law is another good career if you want a better competitive advantage; but I assume you would prefer to work in scientific R&D.

The pay is low... = Ill-defined. If you want to make beaucoup $$$ doing science, the best way is to start your own business and take it from there. Assuming you have developed a product (or service, like consulting) that commands a large market with $ to spend on you or your product. But if you will be satisfied with a comfortable lifestyle, then it all depends on where you land a job working for someone else. How important is earning lots of money to you?

Hours are excruciating = Ill-defined & exaggerated. If you're talking about Grad school, Ph.D. and all that, then yes, you will put in long hours learning the subject, picking up tools and picking up the habit of working hard. Later, things will probably seem easier. But "excruciating"? You have to stop listening to depressives. This is the sort of self-talk my therapist would be horrified to hear. Examine exactly what that word means to you, if it means anything. What do you think it means, hanging from a cross? Come on.

Oh, and horror stories. Yeah. Have you noticed that horror stories/movies are not exactly your typical everyday real-world experiences? Theatre-goers don't watch thrillers because they want to understand how the real world works (well, there are exceptions. Some folks mistake TV and movies for the real thing. Don't be one of those people.) The masters of the horror genre, like Stephen King, have a talent for creating a mundane reality, then having it slip into another dimension or some such - opening the back door of a diner and stepping into the days immediately preceding Kennedy's assassination. Perhaps he should write a story where an unsuspecting grad student opens his apartment door before midnight for the first night in months and finds, instead of his BBTheory nerds, a sleeper cell of terrorists fawning over the thermonuclear weapon they just completed in the attic on the mornings while he was sleeping. Now, THAT"S a horror story. Reminds me of a dream I had once.

You have no free time for anything. = Depends on you. If you can't find time for a life, it'll happen in grad school, if not before. In that case, change course. There are alternatives. Working hard does not exclude playing hard. Hang with the right crowd and you can have an enjoyable life on and off the job.

no job security, lots of student debt = Welcome to the real world. Used to be scientists were told their future was assured because of Sputnik, plastics new drugs, whatever. We were spoiled back then. It's not the '60s anymore. And as a result, the gov. has been awfully slow picking up the tab as a result. These 2 things are true for anybody, except as I said above, lawyers. This is like saying no one will hire you once you reach 50 y.o. Age discrimination is universal, or almost. Besides, if you didn't have to put in long hours and really learn and apply yourself to a profession, anybody could and would do so. Job security used to be the rule working for the government. Hard to say where that's going. The homeland security biz is booming. I have an acquaintance who works for a big gov. contractor with a long history in weapons development issues. He has a technical background, I don't know if it's physics exactly, and works in cybersecurity. My guess is it also has to do with the nukes. He's getting a new security clearance as we speak. Read "Command & Control" by Eric Schlosser about the subject of nuclear weapons security. It's pretty overwhelming; and as long as there are nuclear weapons, people will be working on this problem. It's really impossible to have weapons that will work 100% of the time and be 100% safe from accidents, but we absolutely have to get better at it. I'm sure there are still physicists at work on it.

Again, I think the very best situation is self-employment, if you can swing it. Job security is strictly up to you. Not likely you'll fire yourself because your hair turned gray. I wouldn't know, but I guess this path will entail lots of debt, failures too. (I heard somewhere that Trump went into bankruptcy at least once.) If the administration/business stuff is unbearable, hire the appropriate suits to do this stuff. Or sell it to someone who doesn't mind that stuff. There are types of security you'll have to take care of yourself though, like health insurance and retirement.

On the other hand, are you're looking for a career for lazy people? In which case, you're in the wrong place. Go to your guidance counsellor and tell her you're really lazy and wonder what career is perfect for you. No. Don't. I'm only kidding. I hope you realize I'm trying to be entertaining here. Don't take it personally. Lighten the mood, you see?

I think that about covers it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

High supply, low demand. = True, also true for all scientific/technical R&D type jobs I can think of. Medicine is a little better in this regard because medicine (excepting pathology) is practiced locally; i.e. it can't easily be outsourced to other countries like China or India. Law is another good career if you want a better competitive advantage; but I assume you would prefer to work in scientific R&D.

The pay is low... = Ill-defined. If you want to make beaucoup $$$ doing science, the best way is to start your own business and take it from there. Assuming you have developed a product (or service, like consulting) that commands a large market with $ to spend on you or your product. But if you will be satisfied with a comfortable lifestyle, then it all depends on where you land a job working for someone else. How important is earning lots of money to you?

Hours are excruciating = Ill-defined & exaggerated. If you're talking about Grad school, Ph.D. and all that, then yes, you will put in long hours learning the subject, picking up tools and picking up the habit of working hard. Later, things will probably seem easier. But "excruciating"? You have to stop listening to depressives. This is the sort of self-talk my therapist would be horrified to hear. Examine exactly what that word means to you, if it means anything. What do you think it means, hanging from a cross? Come on.

Oh, and horror stories. Yeah. Have you noticed that horror stories/movies are not exactly your typical everyday real-world experiences? Theatre-goers don't watch thrillers because they want to understand how the real world works (well, there are exceptions. Some folks mistake TV and movies for the real thing. Don't be one of those people.) The masters of the horror genre, like Stephen King, have a talent for creating a mundane reality, then having it slip into another dimension or some such - opening the back door of a diner and stepping into the days immediately preceding Kennedy's assassination. Perhaps he should write a story where an unsuspecting grad student opens his apartment door before midnight for the first night in months and finds, instead of his BBTheory nerds, a sleeper cell of terrorists fawning over the thermonuclear weapon they just completed in the attic on the mornings while he was sleeping. Now, THAT"S a horror story. Reminds me of a dream I had once.

You have no free time for anything. = Depends on you. If you can't find time for a life, it'll happen in grad school, if not before. In that case, change course. There are alternatives. Working hard does not exclude playing hard. Hang with the right crowd and you can have an enjoyable life on and off the job.

no job security, lots of student debt = Welcome to the real world. Used to be scientists were told their future was assured because of Sputnik, plastics new drugs, whatever. We were spoiled back then. It's not the '60s anymore. And as a result, the gov. has been awfully slow picking up the tab as a result. These 2 things are true for anybody, except as I said above, lawyers. This is like saying no one will hire you once you reach 50 y.o. Age discrimination is universal, or almost. Besides, if you didn't have to put in long hours and really learn and apply yourself to a profession, anybody could and would do so. Job security used to be the rule working for the government. Hard to say where that's going. The homeland security biz is booming. I have an acquaintance who works for a big gov. contractor with a long history in weapons development issues. He has a technical background, I don't know if it's physics exactly, and works in cybersecurity. My guess is it also has to do with the nukes. He's getting a new security clearance as we speak. Read "Command & Control" by Eric Schlosser about the subject of nuclear weapons security. It's pretty overwhelming; and as long as there are nuclear weapons, people will be working on this problem. It's really impossible to have weapons that will work 100% of the time and be 100% safe from accidents, but we absolutely have to get better at it. I'm sure there are still physicists at work on it.

Again, I think the very best situation is self-employment, if you can swing it. Job security is strictly up to you. Not likely you'll fire yourself because your hair turned gray. I wouldn't know, but I guess this path will entail lots of debt, failures too. (I heard somewhere that Trump went into bankruptcy at least once.) If the administration/business stuff is unbearable, hire the appropriate suits to do this stuff. Or sell it to someone who doesn't mind that stuff. There are types of security you'll have to take care of yourself though, like health insurance and retirement.

On the other hand, are you're looking for a career for lazy people? In which case, you're in the wrong place. Go to your guidance counsellor and tell her you're really lazy and wonder what career is perfect for you. No. Don't. I'm only kidding. I hope you realize I'm trying to be entertaining here. Don't take it personally. Lighten the mood, you see?

I think that about covers it.

What you state above for "High supply, low demand" may be true for physics PhDs wanting to work in R&D jobs in academia, but the situation is not universally true for all scientific/technical areas. In the US and Canada, there is still high demand for numerous specific engineering fields (chemical engineering, mechanical engineering), and there is high demand for those working in the areas of "data science" (i.e. statisticians, computer scientists specializing in machine learning, physicists who've retrained to work in that field).

And you are wrong about law being a good career path, at least in the US -- I have read countless reports in news programs describing the oversupply of law school graduates versus positions available in law firms, and the high unemployment of recent law school graduates. See the following link below from the Wall Street Journal as reference (the article is a few years old, but I have not read anything indicating that the situation has changed dramatically recently).

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304858104579264730376317914

And regarding Trump, he is not an entrepreneur who founded his own business -- he inherited both his wealth and much of the original real-estate business from his father, Fred Trump. And Trump declared bankruptcy 4 times in total.

 

[Boolean Boogey]

What you state above for "High supply, low demand" may be true for physics PhDs wanting to work in R&D jobs in academia, but the situation is not universally true for all scientific/technical areas. In the US and Canada, there is still high demand for numerous specific engineering fields (chemical engineering, mechanical engineering), and there is high demand for those working in the areas of "data science" (i.e. statisticians, computer scientists specializing in machine learning, physicists who've retrained to work in that field).

Doesn't this support the idea that physics is not a great career field?

 

[StatGuy2000]

Doesn't this support the idea that physics is not a great career field?

Not necessarily. The point I was trying to make was that people with physics degrees (in particular, those who have pursued graduate studies in physics) often possesses a broad range of skills (problem-solving and technical skills) which can readily be applied to a wide range of careers, including the latest field of data science, similar to those with math degrees (of which a physics degree has much in common). Of course, a lot depends on what skills the physics or math student acquires during his/her education, and how broadly or narrowly the student is looking into for possible careers.

If someone is dead set on pursuing a career in academia, then yes, the probability is fairly good that the career prospects may not be so positive, given how competitive tenure-track positions are (not impossible, but difficult). But academia is not the only career path that is open to physics or math graduates, so long as you acquire important technical skills which are applicable in a wide range of fields (e.g. programming skills, quantitative skills, simulation, data analysis, etc.).

It is also worth pointing out that different areas of physics or math may be more or less employable. I have often read that those specializing in condensed matter physics or AMO (atomic, molecular, and optical) physics are often highly employable -- perhaps those specializing in those fields can speak more about this. And those specializing in applied math (in particular, those with background in numerical analysis, statistics, or operations research) may be more employable than those in say, pure math.

 

[-Dragoon-]

I'm a recent physics BS graduate now several months into a full-time engineering position. Here's my take on this issue: disregard practically everything anyone here says that isn't backed up by official statistics and studies. At one point in time, I used to eat up all of the bad things people were saying about the degree on here and how it would lead to perpetual unemployment. Just one month after graduating I received 5 interviews and 2 job offers in the end. Some people will undoubtedly claim I must be the exception looking at my post history. But I've even helped a few friends with no prior research and internship experience secure work in the engineering field. From most of my graduating class, the majority went into graduate school, and then in the engineering industry, and lastly finance/data/programming. In hindsight, some of the stuff written here that I used to hold as the absolute truth is so ridiculous that I actually wish I had more time to refute. Things like you absolutely do need an engineering degree for an engineering job. For a job that probably requires someone who can qualify at some point qualify for the p.eng this is correct, but these jobs are very few and far between. In my experience, many employers now realize just how incompetent many engineering graduates are. My experience and the experience of many my colleagues would suggest they now prefer people with technical backgrounds that have a good grasp on the fundamental knowledge that they can later train rather than waiting for someone they believe can hit the ground running. I don't mean to come off as snide, but as a physics graduate I'd say you are at least guaranteed to be as competent as the average engineer but will be lacking mainly in the design aspects of the job that you should have no issue picking up.

Despite the above, I will say there are certain ways you need to tailor your resume and cover letter to go about looking for work. It helps tremendously taking a few engineering electives and doing research in areas of applied physics along with internship experience, but this is not completely necessary even if it puts you at a disadvantage. If any of you on here are having issues and need further tips with resume writing and other things I won't elaborate on here, feel free to PM me.

 

[radium]

I have talked with quite a few physic/math PhDs who have gone on to careers in engineering/tech positions. Many say that their extensive math background gives them a leg up on engineers. People often talk about engineers having math skills, but on average these skills don't compare to those of someone from physics. When employers see you have studied physics, they know you have great quantitative/analytical skills and flexible ways of thinking. Even if you don't currently have the exact skills they are looking for, they know that your background will allow you to learn them quickly and keep up to date on the latest things you need to know. Google actually visits physics departments for info sessions (not sure how many departments though).

You can still get many of these jobs as a theorist. From what I have heard, as long as you have a good working knowledge of Python or Matlab, you are very hireable in areas such as data science, various positions at IBM, Intel, Google, Facebook, etc.

 

[Boolean Boogey]

I have talked with quite a few physic/math PhDs who have gone on to careers in engineering/tech positions. Many say that their extensive math background gives them a leg up on engineers. People often talk about engineers having math skills, but on average these skills don't compare to those of someone from physics.

In what ways are those that major in physics superior to engineering students, mathematically speaking?

 

[George Jones]

A typical physics major is exposed to a wider variety of mathematics than is a typical engineering major. (Of course, here are exceptions to this general statement.) This difference in exposures (not necessarily differences in mathematical abilities) allows physics majors to develop different mathematical skills. Of course, engineering majors are exposed to things to which physics majors are not exposed, so ...

 

[Boolean Boogey]

A typical physics major is exposed to a wider variety of mathematics than is a typical engineering major. (Of course, here are exceptions to this general statement.) This difference in exposures (not necessarily differences in mathematical abilities) allows physics majors to develop different mathematical skills. Of course, engineering majors are exposed to things to which physics majors are not exposed, so ...

Which mathematics are physics majors exposed to that engineering majors are not exposed to?

 

[George Jones]

For example, more stuff on solving partial differential equations, on special functions, on calculus of variations.

 

[Jano L.]

Which mathematics are physics majors exposed to that engineering majors are not exposed to?

I think the mathematics where you wade through the infinite sequence of definition, statement, proof, remark, definition, ...

 

[George Jones]

I think the mathematics where you wade through the infinite sequence of definition, statement, proof, remark, definition, ...

I think that a physics student's exposure to this is dependent on the student's geographical location.

 

[Boolean Boogey]

Alright fair enough.

I think that a physics student's exposure to this is dependent on the student's geographical location.

Why is location a determining factor?

 

[clope023]

Which mathematics are physics majors exposed to that engineering majors are not exposed to?

Depends, some of my fellow physics major cohort did partial differential equations, real analysis, functional analysis, did research on lie algebras, among other more theoretical topics due to their own interest. Engineers in general aren't very rigorous when it comes to math versus physicists and their proficiency tends to weaken the more abstraction packs on to the subject at hand.

 

[radium]

Well I think the biggest thing is that physics requires you to understand math at a higher level conceptually.